1 Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, II/1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), p. 82.
2 For one critique see McCormack, Bruce, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
3 Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth: Sacred Doctrine and the Natural Knowledge of God (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1995). Theologians such as Robert Jenson use Rogers's work as authoritative. See Jenson, Robert, The Works of God: Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 154–64.
5 Thomas Aquinas, pp. 17–70.
6 Ibid., pp. 157–65, for a quick summary of Rogers's conclusions about Thomas's commentary on Romans.
7 Summa Theologiae, I, q. 13, a. 10 cited hereafter as ST. All English quotations are taken from the Fathers of the Dominican Province translation, 1974.
9 Ponitur is the Latin verb Aquinas uses, meaning to be put, placed or set.
10 I want to note I am not saying Aquinas does not do metaphysics. More specifically, I am noting what kind of metaphysic he does not have.
11 David Burrell, Analogy and Philosophical Language (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973), p. 170. For Gilson's discussion that Burrell uses see Gilson, Etienne, The Christian Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, trans. Shook, L. K. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956), pp. 103–10. See also Pickstock, Catherine, After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), pp. 121–35.
13 For a fuller account of this critique of analogy on which I am heavily dependent see Burrell, Analogy, pp. 12–20. For a contemporary argument supporting univocity see Thomas Williams, ‘The Doctrine of Univocity is True and Salutary’, Modern Theology 21 (Oct. 2005), pp. 575–85.
14 See e.g. ST, I, q. 13 a. 2.
15 See Leget, Carlo, ‘Christ the Teacher in St. Thomas's Commentary on the Gospel of John’, in Dauphinais, Michael and Levering, Matthew (eds), Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2005), p. 184.
16 Michael Sherwin, ‘Come and See’, in Dauphinais and Levering, Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 179.
18 See Pasquarello, Michael III, Sacred Rhetoric: Preaching as a Theological and Pastoral Practice of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 73–85.
19 Barron, Robert, Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master (New York: Crossroad, 1996), p. 20.
20 For an erudite account of christological language in Aquinas see Schoot, Henk J. M., Christ the ‘Name’ of God: Thomas Aquinas on Naming Christ (Nijmegen: Leuven, 1993).
24 Emery, Gilles, Trinity in Aquinas, trans. Levering, Matthew, Buttery, Heather, Williams, Robert and Bede, Teresa (Ypsilanti, MI: Sapientia Press, 2003), p. 152.
26 Weinandy, Thomas, ‘Aquinas: God is Man. The Marvel of the Incarnation’, in Weinandy, Thomas, Keating, Daniel and Yocus, John (eds), Aquinas on Doctrine: A Critical Introduction (London: T & T Clark, 2004), p. 83. Cf. ST, III, q. 17 a. 2.
27 See ST, III, prologue.
28 ST, III, q. 40 a. 1 ad. 3.
30 ST, III, q. 42 a. 2 ad. 1.
31 ST, III, q. 42 a. 2 ad. 2.
32 Hauerwas, Stanley, With the Grain of the Universe: The Church's Witness and Natural Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001), p. 186, n. 26.
34 Barth, CD, IV/1, p. 192.
36 Hunsinger, George, ‘Beyond Literalism and Expressivism: Karl Barth's Hermeneutical Realism’, Modern Theology 3/3 (1987), p. 215.
37 McCormack, Bruce, ‘Grace and Being: The Role of God's Gracious Election in Karl Barth's Theological Ontology’, in Webster, John (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 96–7.
38 Barth CD, IV/1, pp. 184–5. Neil MacDonald does put the matter in more epistemic-ontological terms: for Barth there can be no distinction between God and his revelation. As MacDonald puts it, ‘God reveals Himself through Himself with the result that God reveals Himself’. In other words, revelation is not something that merely points to or ‘mediates’ God; it is God himself. If God's revelation were not himself, humanity would be left trying to find God on our own terms – the natural theology that Barth repudiated. MacDonald, Neil, Karl Barth and the Strange New World within the Bible: Barth, Wittgenstein, and the Metadilemmas of the Enlightenment (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2001), p. 149.
41 CD, IV/1, p. 480; see also Krotke, Wolf, ‘The Humanity of the Human Person in Karl Barth's Anthropology’, in Webster, John (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 161–2.
42 CD IV/2, pp. 344–5; cf. Krotke, ‘Humanity’, pp. 163–4.
43 The section that follows is greatly indebted to Webster, John, Barth's Ethics of Reconciliation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
47 Karl Barth, CD, The Christian Life, IV/4 Lecture Fragments, pp. 50ff.; hereafter cited as simply IV/4.
52 Mangina, Joseph, Karl Barth on the Christian Life: The Practical Knowledge of God (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), p. 172.
53 For a further discussion on the Christian life being a participation in the life of the Trinity see Karl Barth on the Christian Life, pp. 65–75.
54 Hauerwas, With the Grain, p. 174.
57 I am indebted to Michael Pasquarello III for helping me put the matter in this way.
58 A previous version of this article was delivered at the Lilly Fellows Program National Research Conference in coordination with the Pruit Symposium, Baylor University, 10 Nov. 2006. I am grateful to those who offered advice and suggestions for improving the article, particularly David Burrell, Eugene Rogers and Brad Kallenberg. I also want to thank the University of Dayton Graduate School for funding the research of this article.